The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-05-11

on the other hand he was mere lntruder
liable to the owners for the rents OF the
land, these rents, which exceeded TIE
amount paid for taxes, would operate 50
Instant as payment of the amount eA-
pended in the purchase and as redemp-
ton of the property. Gaskins V. blake,
q Miss, 675.
So also it is immaterial whether ap-
pellant was in possession of the lands IN
the year 1874, as some OF the witnesses
for the appellee say he was, or only
went into possession in 1875 as he con-
tends. In either event the appellant
became liable for rents and profits In
excess of his bid before the expiration
of the period allowed for redemption.
Until the lapse of the time in which the
owner is permitted TO redeem, the title
of the purchaser is incohate, and does
not carry with it the right 10 the posses
sion of the land as against the owner.
And the disability TO buy carries with It
the disability to invoke the special
statute of limitations provided for the
protection of those who hold under tax
sales. MCGEE v. Holmes, 90 Miss, Do
We find it unnecessary to explore the
voluminous record testimony to weigh
| the testimony as to the value of the rents
of the land which were awarded to the
appelIees, or to determine what rate OF
| interest should have been allowed no
some of the claims propounded by the ap-
| pellant against the estate, or TO examine
| the correctness of the chancellOr's views
in disallowing the claims which were
rejected. All of the rejected claims
were bound by limitation at the sale of
| the claim of insolvency as were all those
| for which an allowance was made to
appellant save only the judgment In
favor of Caster of which he became the
owner.
| Administration was granted upon the
estate of the interstate on the - day
of -, 1866. The petition to declare
the estate insolvent was fled on the
- day of -, 1869, but the decree
thereon was not made until November,
| 1872, more than six years after the
grant of letters of administration. 1t is
evident that unless the statutes of lmi-
tation were suspended by the petition to
| declare the estate insolvent, all claims
not sued on were bound by Art. 10,
chap. 81, p. 400, of the Code of 1857
| (sec. 2l55, Code of 1879, which declared
that mo action, or scire taciaS, shall be
brought against any executor or admin
istrator, upon any judgment, or other
cause of action, against his testator or
intestate, but within four years after
the qualification of such executor or
administrator"
By the act of November 21st, 1871
| Hutchinson Code, 667) it was declared
that no action or suit should be COM
menced or sustained against an executor
or administrator latter the estate of the
testator or intestate be represented in
solvent. This act was afterwards
amended so that suits pending against
the personal representation at the time of
the representation of insolvency should
not thereby abate, but might be prose
cuted to final judgment, but no execu-
ton might issue thereon. Act of June
Both, 1872. Hutchinson Code, 673. In
the revision of the laws by the Code of
1857, the amendment of 1922 was alone
brought forward and since that time
there has been no statute prohibiting
a creditor from instituting his action
against an executor or administrator
who had represented the estate of his
testator or intestate to be insolvent BY
a decree of insolvency the property OF
the estate is Withdrawn from liability to
seizure aud sale under legal process
Parker V. Whiting, How, 352.
| And since by the decree creditors are
prevented from suing, it suspends the
running of the statute of limitations
upon their demand. Hendricks V. Pugh.
81 Miss. 157
If the decree should be reversed ard
the account stated on the basis con.
tended for by the appellant as to all
claims properly chargeaole on the lands
and not bound by limitation at the date
of the decree CT insolvency, the result
would be to increase rather than to dis
minish the decree against him. With
out, therefore, deciding whether there
was or was not any error in the method
directed by the chancellor for stating
the account, it is sufficient to say that il
there be error it is more than counter
balanced by the allowances enormously
made in his favor and he can not com,
plain of the final result.
The decree is therefore affirmed.